DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 13: “determining at least one first system-reference-property (m), the condition (B) of” should be corrected to “determining at least one first system-reference-property (m), the necessary condition (B) of”.
Claim 4 line 2: “a diagnostic test (t) is determined respect to a state cause (n)” should be corrected to “[[a]]the diagnostic test (t) is determined respect to [[a]]the state cause (n)”.
Claim 4 line 4: “present, only a single second system-reference-property (mx) of the set (N) being undetermined” should be corrected to “present, and only a single second system-reference-property (mx) of the set (N) being undetermined”.
Claim 10 line 2: “at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) is detected in a test operation of the control- and/or regulation system by performing a diagnostic test” should be corrected to “the at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) is detected in a test operation of the control- and/or regulation system by performing [[a]]the diagnostic test”
Claim 13 line 1: “a control- and/or regulation system for a process plant with at least one actuator” should be corrected to “[[a]]the control- and/or regulation system for [[a]]the process plant with at least one actuator”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties (m)” and “at least one predetermined system-reference-property (m)”. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the variable (m) is intended to refer to multiple properties or a single property. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear when the claims require multiple properties and when the claims only require a single property. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what the variable (m) is intended to represented or by removing reference to the variable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α)” in line 11. It is unclear from the language of the claim what the variables (s, x, z, α) are intended to represent. The claims are indefinite because the variables (s, x, z, α) are not defined in the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited “(s, x, z, α)” shall be interpreted as providing examples of system properties and not required by the claims. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what the relationship between the system-actual-property and the variables (s, x, z, α) is.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of state causes (n)” and “at least one state cause (n)”. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the variable (n) is intended to refer to multiple causes or a single cause. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear when the claims require multiple causes and when the claims only require a single cause. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what the variable (n) is intended to represented or by removing reference to the variable.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a diagnostic test is determined which corresponds to at least one second system-reference-property" in line 2. It is silent as to the language of if the recited “a diagnostic test” is intended as a new limitation or is referring to the previously recited “a diagnostic test”. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as referring to either a new diagnostic test or the previously recited diagnostic test. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what test is being referred to at any given point in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a necessary condition (B) defined as a history set of rules” in line 3. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited “a necessary condition” is intended to be a new limitation or is referring to the previously defined “a necessary condition”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claim language. For the purposes of examination the recited “a necessary condition” shall be interpreted as either a new condition or referring to the previously defined condition. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what necessary condition is being referred to at any given point in the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an assignment of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties (s, x, z, α) to the first system-reference-property (m) being performed using the history set of rules.” in line 4. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is unclear from the language of the claim how the “predetermined temporal sequence” and the “duration of system-actual-properties” are both assigned to and performed by the history set of rules. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as requiring using a predetermined temporal sequence or a duration of system-actual-properties as a necessary condition. Further clarification of what is required by the claim would be appreciated.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim as a whole is directed to transitory computer readable medium such as products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
a) providing a diagnostic database comprising an assignment of a plurality of state causes (n) to a respective set comprising a plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties (m), wherein each system-reference-property is assigned a necessary condition (B);
b) providing a test database comprising different diagnostic tests (t) each assigned to at least one predetermined system-reference-property (m);
c) detecting at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) of the control- and/or regulation system;
d) determining at least one first system-reference-property (m), the condition (B) of which is fulfilled by the detected at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α);
e) detecting, based on the determined at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause (n), of the plurality of state causes, whose set (N) of predetermined system-reference-properties (m) comprises the determined first system-reference-property (m), and for at least one second system-reference-property (mx) of this set (N), whether the condition (B) assigned to the second system-reference-property (mx) (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined; and
f) determining at least one diagnostic test (t), based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property (mx) with the necessary condition (B) detected as undetermined.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “an assignment of a plurality of state causes (n) to a respective set comprising a plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties (m), wherein each system-reference-property is assigned a necessary condition (B)”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a diagnostic database,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a diagnostic database” language, “assignment” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assigning system properties to state causes and assigning conditions to system properties .
The limitation(s) regarding “different diagnostic tests (t) each assigned to at least one predetermined system-reference-property (m)”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a test database,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a test database” language, “assigned” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assigning diagnostic tests to system properties.
The limitation(s) regarding “determining at least one first system-reference-property (m), the condition (B) of which is fulfilled by the detected at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α)”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a control- and/or regulation system,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a control- and/or regulation system” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if a system property condition has been fulfilled.
The limitation(s) regarding “detecting, based on the determined at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause (n), of the plurality of state causes, whose set (N) of predetermined system-reference-properties (m) comprises the determined first system-reference-property (m), and for at least one second system-reference-property (mx) of this set (N), whether the condition (B) assigned to the second system-reference-property (mx) (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a control- and/or regulation system,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a control- and/or regulation system” language, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining if a system property is undetermined when a first system property is fulfilled.
The limitation(s) regarding “determining at least one diagnostic test (t), based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property (mx) with the necessary condition (B) detected as undetermined”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a control- and/or regulation system,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a control- and/or regulation system” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a diagnostic test to determine an undetermined system property.
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “a process plant with at least one actuator for adjusting a process fluid” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to actuators in process plants. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “detecting at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) of the control- and/or regulation system” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “a control- and/or regulation system,” “a diagnostic database,” and “a test database” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at least one actuator” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “detecting at least one system-actual-property” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a control- and/or regulation system,” “a diagnostic database,” and “a test database” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1); Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1); Hosek et al. (US 20140201571 A1); Reddy (US 20090094076 A1); Schleiss et al. (US 6633782 B1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “at least one actuator,” “detecting at least one system-actual-property,” “a control- and/or regulation system,” “a diagnostic database,” and “a test database” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Dependent claims 2-13 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2-3 and 7-10 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 2-6 and 11 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites limitation regarding generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
Claim 12 recites generic computer components performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1) in view of Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Weidl teaches:
A method for diagnosing a control- and/or regulation system of a process plant with at least one actuator for adjusting a process fluid, the method comprising:
a) providing a diagnostic database comprising an assignment of a plurality of state causes (n) to a respective set comprising a plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties (m) (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, para[0010], and para[0014]: storage means for storing a data model that associates with the facility, said data model containing information about possible events, hypotheses for the root causes of the possible events and symptoms for the hypotheses.),
wherein each system-reference-property is assigned a necessary condition (B) (See Fig. 4, Fig. 8, para[0054] and para[0143]: The evidences may be provided as a combination of operator checked symptoms, new experiences the operator has within the problem domain, measurement results (e.g. performance metrics, temperature, quality metrics and so on), alarms, computed physical variables indicating a deviation (e.g. a failure), indications on true root causes, adaptation of any probability value and so on. The computed, measured or otherwise automatically supplied symptoms may be provided in the checklist e.g. if the value of a specific symptom parameter is greater or lower than a threshold for said parameter.);
b) providing a test database comprising different diagnostic tests (t) each assigned to at least one predetermined system-reference-property (m) (See Fig. 9, Fig. 10, and para[0146]: Thus the FIG. 9 display also includes a frame wherein the user is enabled to input new symptoms and/or their diagnostic procedures.);
c) detecting at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) of the control- and/or regulation system (See Fig. 4 and para[0125]: The gathering of evidences may occur simultaneously with the selection of the root cause analysis (RCA) at step 200. The step of gathering may comprise classification of evidence signals gathered as symptoms and additional information.);
d) determining at least one first system-reference-property (m), the condition (B) of which is fulfilled by the detected at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) (See Fig. 8, Fig. 10, and para[0143]: The computed, measured or otherwise automatically supplied symptoms may be provided in the checklist e.g. if the value of a specific symptom parameter is greater or lower than a threshold for said parameter.).
Weidl is silent as to the language of:
e) detecting, based on the determined at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause (n), of the plurality of state causes, whose set (N) of predetermined system-reference-properties (m) comprises the determined first system-reference-property (m), and for at least one second system-reference-property (mx) of this set (N), whether the condition (B) assigned to the second system-reference-property (mx) (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined; and
f) determining at least one diagnostic test (t), based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property (mx) with the necessary condition (B) detected as undetermined.
Nevertheless Wittliff teaches:
e) detecting, based on the determined at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause (n), of the plurality of state causes, whose set (N) of predetermined system-reference-properties (m) comprises the determined first system-reference-property (m), and for at least one second system-reference-property (mx) of this set (N), whether the condition (B) assigned to the second system-reference-property (mx) (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined (See para[0031] and para[0093] – para[0095]: In operation, the vehicle/power tool/patient state tracker 20 typically can determine the preconditions required for a subsequent diagnostic test procedure before the completion of a current diagnostic test procedure in order to prevent or minimize redundant efforts at the completion of the current diagnostic procedure and at the initiation of the subsequent diagnostic procedure.); and
f) determining at least one diagnostic test (t), based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property (mx) with the necessary condition (B) detected as undetermined (See Fig. 12, para[0011], para[0033], and para[0044] – para[0045]: arranging an order of a second plurality of diagnostic test procedures, which includes one diagnostic test procedure of the first plurality of diagnostic test procedures, during execution of the first plurality of diagnostic test procedures, and based on intermediate diagnostic test information obtained from execution of the first plurality of diagnostic test procedures.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl by detecting, based on the determined at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause (n), of the plurality of state causes, whose set (N) of predetermined system-reference-properties (m) comprises the determined first system-reference-property (m), and for at least one second system-reference-property (mx) of this set (N), whether the condition (B) assigned to the second system-reference-property (mx) (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined; and determining at least one diagnostic test (t), based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property (mx) with the necessary condition (B) detected as undetermined such as that of Wittliff. Wittliff teaches, “In operation, the vehicle/power tool/patient state tracker 20 typically can determine the preconditions required for a subsequent diagnostic test procedure before the completion of a current diagnostic test procedure in order to prevent or minimize redundant efforts at the completion of the current diagnostic procedure and at the initiation of the subsequent diagnostic procedure” (See para[0094]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because determining a diagnostic test when a necessary condition is undetermined would have helped to prevent or minimize redundant efforts, as recognized by Wittliff.
Regarding Claim 2. Weidl is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 1,
further comprising:
(g) performing the determined at least one diagnostic test (t) to:
detect a system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) corresponding to the second system-reference-property (mx); and
based thereon, determine the assigned necessary condition (B), including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property (mx) is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property (s, x, z, α).
Nevertheless Wittliff teaches:
(g) performing the determined at least one diagnostic test (t) to:
detect a system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) corresponding to the second system-reference-property (mx) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 12, para[0045], para[0097], and para[0201]: Once the precondition has been satisfied, the vehicle/power tool/patient state tracker 20 can update the vehicle/power tool/patient state, for example, in a memory register, to reflect a valid setting corresponding to the precondition.); and
based thereon, determine the assigned necessary condition (B), including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property (mx) is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) (See Fig. 12 and para[0203] – para[0204]: In addition, in step 162, "Receive Input," input can be received indicating that the test procedures have been performed and that the associated failure mode has been verified or eliminated, as described above.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl by performing the determined at least one diagnostic test (t) to: detect a system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) corresponding to the second system-reference-property (mx); and based thereon, determine the assigned necessary condition (B), including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property (mx) is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) such as that of Wittliff. Wittliff teaches, “In addition, the sequence can be modified during test execution based on intermediate test results” (See para[0033]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because determining if a condition for a second system property has been fulfilled would have helped to determine if a diagnostic test sequence needed to be modified, as recognized by Wittliff.
Regarding Claim 3. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 2,
wherein the diagnostic test in step (g) is performed only in response to an operator release (See para[0124]: To initiate the analysis the operator selects appropriate function by means of the user interface of the analysis system, e.g. by the user terminal 10 or a portable user device 40 of FIG. 1.).
Regarding Claim 5. Weidl teaches:
The method according to, claim 1, wherein,
in step (f), a diagnostic test is determined which corresponds to at least one second system-reference-property (mx) which is assigned to at least two different state causes (See Fig. 7 and para[0028]: The analysis is not necessarily limited to only one possible root cause but several root causes may be analysed simultaneously.).
Regarding Claim 6. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 2, further comprising:
(h) detecting a corresponding state cause (n) based on the system-reference-property (m) determined in step (g) and the diagnostic database (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, para[0055]: After the analysis the inference engine 21 may produce a list of the most probable root causes for the event.).
Regarding Claim 7. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein,
based on the state cause (n) detected in step (h), a state message relating to this state cause (n) is provided (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, para[0055]: After the analysis the inference engine 21 may produce a list of the most probable root causes for the event.).
Regarding Claim 8. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein,
based on the state cause (n) detected in step (h), an action instruction relating to this state cause (n) is provided to the control- and/or regulation system, the action instruction counteracting this state cause (n) and/or a system-reference-property (m) being assigned to this state cause (n) (See para[0166]: The portable device 40 may comprise a display 41 or other user interface (e.g. one based on voice messages, indicator lights and so on) for representing a ranked list of possible causes and the optimal sequence of control and/or maintenance actions or any other actions the operator could take.).
Regarding Claim 9. Weidl teaches:
The method according to, claim 1, wherein,
in step (c), at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) is detected in the ongoing control- and/or regulation operation of the control- and/or regulation system (See para[0053]: At least a part of the symptoms can be gathered as real-time evidences in order to provide a substantially real-time root cause analysis. The real-time gathering of the symptom information may occur on-line.).
Regarding Claim 10. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein,
in step (c), at least one system-actual-property (s, x, z, α) is detected in a test operation of the control- and/or regulation system by performing a diagnostic test (See Fig. 9, Fig. 10, para[0054]: The evidences may be provided as a combination of operator checked symptoms, new experiences the operator has within the problem domain, measurement results (e.g. performance metrics, temperature, quality metrics and so on), alarms, computed physical variables indicating a deviation (e.g. a failure).).
Regarding Claim 12. Weidl teaches:
A system for data processing, comprising:
one or more processors (See Fig. 2 and para[0011]: processor means for root cause analysis based on the data model.); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the method according to claim 1 (See Fig. 2 and para[0168]: The data may be stored e.g. in the fixedly mounted storage means 43 of the device (e.g. a memory chip or card), and/or in a replaceable data storage medium such as a data diskette 44.).
Regarding Claim 13. Weidl teaches:
The system according to claim 12,
comprising a control- and/or regulation system for a process plant with at least one actuator for adjusting a process fluid flow (See Fig. 1, para[0041], and para[0164]: For example, the pulp and paper mill 2 may comprise a plurality of sub-process stages such as digesting, washing, bleaching, recycling, paper formation, evaporation, recovery, and so on, each of these including a substantial number of various different components. An industrial process or other facility may contain a number of manually operated devices 5 (such as valves, switches, gears, process stages and so on).).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1) in view of Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reddy (US 20090094076 A1).
Regarding Claim 4. Weidl is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein, in step (f), a diagnostic test (t) is determined with respect to a state cause (n), of whose set (N) of system-reference-properties (m) at least one is present, only a single second system-reference-property (mx) of the set (N) being undetermined.
Nevertheless Reddy teaches:
wherein, in step (f), a diagnostic test (t) is determined with respect to a state cause (n), of whose set (N) of system-reference-properties (m) at least one is present, only a single second system-reference-property (mx) of the set (N) being undetermined (See Fig. 2 and para[0025]: if the outcome is `No`, Test3 is recommended. As Test3 does not have any outcomes, it implies that it is a repair/replace action, implicating a specific LRU fault.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl wherein, in step (f), a diagnostic test (t) is determined with respect to a state cause (n), of whose set (N) of system-reference-properties (m) at least one is present, only a single second system-reference-property (mx) of the set (N) being undetermined such as that of Reddy. Reddy teaches, “As Test3 does not have any outcomes, it implies that it is a repair/replace action, implicating a specific LRU fault” (See para[0025]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because determining a diagnostic test for a single second system property would have helped to determine what action to take to repair a fault, as recognized by Reddy.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1) in view of Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosek et al. (US 20140201571 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Weidl is silent as to the language of:
The method according to, claim 1, wherein,
in step (d), at least one first system-reference-property (m) is determined based on a necessary condition (B) defined as a history set of rules, an assignment of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties (s, x, z, α) to the first system-reference-property (m) being performed using the history set of rules.
Nevertheless Hosek teaches:
in step (d), at least one first system-reference-property (m) is determined based on a necessary condition (B) defined as a history set of rules, an assignment of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties (s, x, z, α) to the first system-reference-property (m) being performed using the history set of rules (See para[0011], para[0385], para[0398}: Spectrum analysis of plant measurements may also be used for detection and isolation. Most plant variables exhibit a typical frequency spectrum under normal operating conditions; any deviation from this may be an indication of abnormality. Certain types of faults may even have their characteristic signature in the spectrum, facilitating fault isolation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl wherein at least one first system-reference-property (m) is determined based on a necessary condition (B) defined as a history set of rules, an assignment of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties (s, x, z, α) to the first system-reference-property (m) being performed using the history set of rules such as that of Hosek. Hosek teaches, “Certain types of faults may even have their characteristic signature in the spectrum, facilitating fault isolation” (See para[0011]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because using history rules as a necessary condition would have helped to isolate faults, as recognized by Hosek.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schleiss et al. (US 6633782 B1) discloses a diagnostic system for a process control system that recommends what diagnostic tools to use (See Fig. 4, Abstract, and Col. 18 lines 52 – 60).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights